Brexit intensifies

[andrewducker]

So, today the only government ever to be found in contempt of parliament lost a vote by the largest margin ever suffered by a British government, losing by 230 votes (previous "winner" was Ramsay Macdonald's minority Labour government, losing by 166 votes).

Immediately afterwards, Corbyn lodged a vote of no confidence in the government. The DUP have said they will back the Conservatives, which almost certainly means that the vote will fail*.

The EU wants us to make our mind up, and has now repeatedly said that the withdrawal deal is not open for renegotiation. Which greatly reduces the options we have remaining. So once we the no confidence fails I can't see what else Labour can do but move towards a second referendum.

Which is, according to all recent polls, what the people want. (46% to 28% last I checked).

*It's _possible_ that a few Conservatives will rebel. But incredibly unlikely.

Comments

[danieldwilliam]

On a continuum from a hostile no deal, through WTO, May's Deal, EEA to Hard Remain then anything between EEA and Hard Remain (We are forced to or embarrassed in to or decide to join Schegen as part of a a Remain process) would be "to the left of Norway".

I am really uncertain about the relative prospects of another referendum or EEA / Norway-esque.

That coalition you speak of Labour Remainers (ie would actively seek to Remain despite the Cameron referendum), Tory Remainers and economically sane MP's who currently kowtow to the result of the Cameron referendum might have different ways of approaching the choice of a referendum or seeking EEA / Norway-esque.

If you are economically sane then Norway gives you 1) respecting the result 2) economic least damage out of all the Brexit options 3) less risk that the public votes for No Deal, but an other referendum potentially solves your problems with mandates. Assuming the result of the referendum process was Norway or to the left of Norway then you can vote with your (revised) mandate and economic sanity simultaneously.

If you are a Remainer who think that the Cameron referendum result is not morally or politically binding on them, because we are a representative democracy, or the process was flawed or the negotiations have revealed that Brexit can't be done as advertised then you already are prepared to ignore the referendum result. Norway is not what you want but an other referendum might produce a second narrow majority for Leave which you wouldn't be able to ignore. Do you bank the least harm option of Norway-esque or do you risk a referendum in the hope that that is a route to fully Remaining?

And it's all iterative and herdlike because the chances of something working depend on people clustering towards it. 10 Tory Remainers hanging out for Remain will be hung out to dry by their party and still not win. 50 Tory Remainers are a different proposition.

I think 20 or thereabouts (or to acknowledge the fuzziness of the number a score) is a decent guess. Current Tory plus DUP majority is about a dozen. Take 20 off that gets you to a majority of -8, add a small handfull of Labour Brexiteers (those clever enough to spot that Norway is not actually leaving the EU really) and you get to a narrow majority for something like Norway.

(I'm mostly thinking about the arithmatic in blocks of tens, and twenties and fifeties, because shifting those sorts of numbers around tells you whether something is completely impossible or entirely possible and also tells you how vulnerable a particular position is to the whipping activity of the Whips)

[mountainkiss]

Julian Smith is clearly a terribly Chief Whip and she was foolish to promote Williamson.

[danieldwilliam]

I was surprised that he failed to keep the defeat below 200.

My private calibration was that 200+ represented a Terrible Night for the Conservative Party. 230 was, well I genuinely had to blink before I believed it.

The whips have either called in every favour and made every threat and it's not worked or they have given up and cooked up a deal about the VONC.

Williamson is less than awesome. In a cabinet of mediocrities who are hamstrung by their own civil ware he fails to shine.

[mountainkiss]

Oh, he's horrid - both nasty and stupid. But I think those are assets in a chief whip. He wouldn't have presided over a defeat of this magnitude.